- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:30:13 -0500
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- CC: "" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "chairs@w3.org" <chairs@w3.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
On 12/13/2011 5:51 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > Again, what is the use case? With respect, Marcos, you've asked this several times, and I think you've gotten answers including: * A link goes 404 and you want to know what the intended reference was so you can hunt it up or get a near equivalent * You are reading offline, perhaps on paper, and want to know what the reference is * The biblio text provides a degree of redundancy, helping to catch situations in which the wrong link was used or, e.g., cases in which the intention was to link a dated copy but what was linked was undated, or vice versa (this is quite common, IMO). In your example from a later email, it may have been intentional to make a forward reference to http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/, but it may also have been intended to reference http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/ or http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210. A good biblio entry should indicate which was intended, e.g. "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition) W3C Recommendation 26 November 2008", and so that provides a useful crosscheck. * ...several others. I respect the fact that for >you< as a reader of specifications, these are low or zero priority, but others on this list who use specifications are telling you they are important. Preparing good biblios has been part of the nuisance burden of being an editor of prefessional quality documents going way back before there was a Web. I've been editor for many W3C publications, and I know exactly what it involves (frankly, if you keep it up as you go the burden can be spread pretty well in time, but it's certainly not fun creative work). You've asked whether others benefit from the work involved, and I'm hearing several people, including me, responding with a clear "yes", along several use cases. It's reasonable to debate whether those use cases merit the work involved; I think they do, but in any case I'd be grateful if you'd acknowledge that use cases have been provided. Thank you. Noah
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 14:30:44 UTC